RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:10x Bagger! Hello Dam,
I believe that statements like "big news coming" and recent hearsay are not in line with Canadian and US securities regulations for someone in his position. Given that he has access to legal counsel and a responsibility to understand these rules, it appears to me that he disregards them.
According to securities regulations in both countries, individuals like the spouse of a CEO or any insider should refrain from publicly announcing forthcoming significant news about the company unless such information has already been officially disclosed through authorized channels. Making premature statements of this nature can be seen as improper disclosure of material non-public information, constituting a breach of insider trading rules.
Regarding the "big news coming" statement, I cannot confirm if Roger fabricated it or if there was indeed an impending announcement that fell through. Similarly, the recent comment about having fun with investors raises concerns. The broader issue is why these behaviors persist despite their potential legal implications, clarifying whether they are fabricated or based on real information.
Recalling the stock surge two years ago, purportedly fueled by leaked information, I initially considered the possibility that there was substance behind it. However, subsequent actions by Roger suggest otherwise. Was that surge based on fiction, and what happened to the investments made during that time?
I may seem overly critical, but I remember an incident where an update was posted, and Cynthia included a Q&A section addressing common inquiries. One question mentioned "10 million ounces in the ground," and her response seemed disconnected to the questuion, unanswered lead readers to believe there are reserves of that magnitude. To this day 10 million is commonly used. After I pointed out the issue, the revised version of the letter removed that question. However, this misconception still persists among some investors. It's fortunate they don't inquire about a billion ounces. Matlas would have been delighted. Cynthia, if you're reading this, consider a response like, 'I made that comment during a casual forum interview when we were just starting drilling, expressing my optimistic hope. Since then, we've conducted extensive drilling and are still in the learning process.' It's crucial not to leave such questions hanging to avoid misinterpretation. Unless tha question was the reason, and if it was it worked.
In securities, a "bad actor" is someone who does not act in good faith and employs questionable tactics. While there is a legal definition in security law, I used it more broadly before to highlight concerning behavior.
It would be beneficial for transparency if individuals disclosed their relationships, such as being part of the friend and family group or arms length, in discussions. I am not in either group.